6AIR PASSENGER RIGHTS : CONSUMER COMPLAINTS

A summary and analysis of consumer complaints reported to the European Consumer Centre Network

2006AIR PASSENGER RIGHTS : CONSUMER COMPLAINTS

A summary and analysis of consumer complaints reported to the European Consumer Centre Network

r complaintsA summary and analysis of consumeA sum y a mplaonsanalyCentre Networkreported to the European Consumer orted the E rop

2

3

1. Introduction

2. Scope

3. Legal framework

4. General results

4.1 Types of contacts

4.2 Importance of air travel complaints

4.3 Complaints : country of the air carrier

4.4 Complaints : country of the consumer

4.5 Outcome of the complaints

5. Other agencies involved in resolving air passengers’ complaints

5.1 Collaboration with the National Enforcement Bodies (NEBs)

5.2 Collaboration with the Alternative Dispute Resolution Bodies (ADRs)

5.3 Legal action

6. ECC-Net activities in the air passenger rights fi eld

7. Overall problems and recommendations

7.1 Luggage/baggage claims

7.2 Flight delay & cancellation

7.3 Denied boarding

7.4 Claims for consequential damages

7.5 Other air related queries

7.5.1 Price display

7.5.2 Modifying or cancelling a booking, booking online & “taxes, fees & charges”

7.5.3 Connecting fl ights, involvement of different airlines & return/one way fl ights

7.6 Dealing with airlines

8. Conclusions and fi nal recommendations

Footnotes

Appendices

ECC-Net questionnaire

Contact details of ECC offi ces

Contents

ine

a

king, bo

ment of

mendat

es

g a b

, invo

eco

re

CC o

al dama

ueries

display

odifying

Conne

g with a

usions

notes

pendic

CC-Net

Contac

equent

ated q

Price

.5.2 M

7.5.3

Deali

onc

Foo

Ap

E

ation

g

cons

air re

7.5

7.

8.

ancel

oardin

ms fo

Othe

elay & c

Denied

7.4 Cl

7

r pa

ment B

ative Dispute Resolution Bo

senger rights

aint

me of t

gencies involved in r

5.1 Collaboration with the Nat

aboration with th

gal action

-Net activities in the

rall problems and recom

4567

14

1719

303233

4

The European Consumer Centre (ECC) Network consists of centres in 27 European countries. The Network is co-

fi nanced by the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General of the European Commission and by each of

the national governments. ECC-Net’s objective is to create consumer confi dence in the Internal Market. This is achieved

by providing information to consumers on their rights, and by assisting them with cross-border disputes.

In addition, each ECC carries out information campaigns ; publishes information material and a website ; gives presen-

tations and engages in joint reports and surveys with other ECCs. ECCs also provide feedback to national consumer

agencies and the European Commission on problem areas requiring enforcement.

Since Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 on air passenger rights came into force on 17th February 2005, ECC-Net has seen an

increase in cases relating to this area. In 2006, ECC-Net decided to compile and analyse statistics of the air passenger

rights cases handled in 2005. Air Passenger Rights : Consumer Complaints 2005 was published in November 2006.

Now it is time to publish the follow up, Air Passenger Rights: Consumer Complaints 2006.

The legal framework for the cases handled by the ECC Network is the Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 and the Montreal

Convention. Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 applies in cases where a fl ight is cancelled or delayed, or when a passenger

is denied boarding. The Montreal Convention establishes the air carrier’s responsibility when the consumer suffers

(economical) damage due to a fl ight delay or when their luggage is lost, damaged or delayed.

In 2005 2,716 cases relating to air passenger rights were received by ECC-Net. In 2006 the Network recorded 4,901.

The number of complaints has almost doubled in one year. In the fi rst 6 months of 2007, ECC-Net statistics show that

some 1,500 complaints and disputes relating to air travel have been received. This is on par with the number of com-

plaints received in 2006 and it remains to be seen whether an increase will be recorded, once complaints received after

the busy summer period have been counted.

The fact that ECC-Net deals solely with cross-border problems means, however, that in terms of complaints received,

they just represent the ‘tip of the iceberg’. The analysis of complaints received by ECC-Net relating to air travel should,

therefore, be read within a wider context. Other actors dealing with consumer problems and air passenger rights

include the National Enforcement Bodies (NEBs), Consumer Agencies and Ombudsmen, Alternative Dispute

Resolution Bodies (ADRs) and also the courts.

Being the only network that deals specifi cally with cross-border consumer complaints and disputes, the European

Consumer Centre Network is certainly in a unique position to document the problems consumers face when shop-

ping within the Internal Market. While the Internal Market offers so many advantages in terms of choice and value to

the 500 million people living in it, problems remain too. As more and more people avail of cheap fl ights to enable

travel within that Market, it is imperative that the legislation protecting them is strong and that adequate enforcement

ensures 100% compliance with the legislation by airlines. The complaints analysed in the Report show that this is not

always the case and outlines where action is needed.

Edith Appelmans Director, ECC Belgium eappelmans@eccbelgium.be

Katarzyna Kobylinska, Adviser, ECC Ireland kkobylinska@eccdublin.ie

Rebecka Fjalling, Adviser, ECC Sweden Rebecka.fjalling@konsumentverket.se

December 2007

1. Introduction

5

The purpose of this Report is to :

• Analyse the air travel complaints received by the ECC Network in 2006• Use that as a basis to provide comments on the problem areas• Highlight the relevant work undertaken by each ECC during 2006• Suggest recommendations for possible improvement.

All the statistics, statements and conclusions made in the Report are based on the information that has been provided by each of the national ECC offi ces. A copy of the questionnaire sent to all ECCs can be found in Ap-pendix A. The opinions contained are not those of the European Commission or of national funding bodies.

All contacts from consumers received by the ECC-Net are divided into two categories : ‘requests for information’ and ‘complaints and disputes’.

A ‘request for information’ means any query by a consumer regarding a national or cross-border consumer issue, not related to an existing individual complaint, where expert information on EU consumer legislation is given.

A ‘complaint’ means any statement of dissatisfaction by a consumer, concerning a cross-border transaction with a trader, where ECC assistance is provided. With some complaints, a consumer is informed about their entitlements and advised how to approach the trader in order to solve the issue directly and in these cases no follow-up by an ECC is needed. In other complaints, intervention is necessary on the part of an ECC.

A ‘dispute’ means a complaint referred to an out-of-court scheme, after ECC intervention provedunsuccessful.

2. Scope

6

There are two main legal instru-ments that are applicable to cas-es regarding air travel : Regula-tion 261/2004, and the Montreal Convention.

Regulation (EC) No 261 / 2004

This Regulation1 came into force in February 2005. It regulates cases where a fl ight is either cancelled or delayed, and when a passen-ger is denied boarding. The Reg-ulation is applicable on all fl ights that depart from an airport in all EU and EEA countries. It also ap-plies to fl ights departing from : an airport outside the EU/EEA, going to an airport within the EU/EEA, if the fl ight is operated by an air carrier with a license issued by an authority in an EU/EEA country.

The Regulation stipulates that in the case of a cancellation, delay or denied boarding, passengers have the right to care provided by the air carrier. The care varies ac-cording to the length of the delay, but might include meals and re-freshments, phone calls, fax mes-sages or email. If the passenger has to spend an extra night wait-ing for a fl ight, hotel accommoda-tion and transport to and from it must be provided at the expense of the air carrier. It is important to note that the duty to provide the consumer with the right to care is absolute, and cannot be excluded by claiming that there were ex-ceptional circumstances.

In the case of a fl ight cancellation with no prior notice, the passen-ger is additionally entitled to com-pensation. For cancellation with short prior notice the passenger is entitled to compensation if the air carrier fails to provide a new booking to the fi nal place of desti-

nation. It is only when the air carri-er can prove that the cancellation was due to extraordinary circum-stances, that the air carrier can be excluded from the obligation to pay this compensation.

The Regulation imposes an obli-gation on the air carrier to inform passengers about their rights. At the check-in desk, the air carrier should have a clear notice that in the case of denied boarding, cancellation or delay of a fl ight, the passenger can ask for written information on their rights.

The Montreal Convention

The Montreal Convention2 is ap-plicable on international fl ights, provided that the countries of fl ight departure and arrival have ratifi ed it. The European Union is a party to the Montreal Conven-tion. With the amendments made (in Regulation 889/2002) to the Regulation 2027/97, the Montreal Convention was made applicable on all fl ights within the European Union, both domestic and inter-national. The Montreal Conven-tion regulates the air carrier’s responsibility in cases where the passenger suffers economic loss due to delay3, as well as economic loss due to lost, delayed or dam-aged luggage.

The Montreal Convention also places limits on the air carrier’s responsibility. For damages due to delay, the liability of the air car-rier to compensate the passen-ger is limited to the value of 4,150 Special Drawing Rights (SDR)4 per passenger. When it comes to luggage, the liability of the carrier is limited to 1,000 SDR per pas-senger.

There are set time limits in the Montreal Convention, pointing out when the passenger must make his claim. For a damaged luggage claim, the time limit is seven days from the moment of delivery, for delayed luggage the claim must be made within twenty-one days of the luggage being returned to the passenger. If the air carrier admits that the luggage is lost, or the luggage does not arrive within twenty-one days, the passengers have the right to make a claim for lost lug-gage against the air carrier. The Convention does not set a time limit for when this claim should be made but the recommenda-tion would be to make a claim as soon as possible.

3. The legal framework

7

4. General results

Total contacts 2006

39%

61%

information

complaints

The other 2,979 contacts were recorded as complaints and disputes. The breakdown of these complaints and disputes is as follows :

Of these contacts, 1,928 were information requests. The type of informa-tion requested can be broken down as follows :

4.1 Types of contacts

In 2006 ECC-Net recorded 4,907 contacts concerning air passenger rights.

TOTAL %

Luggage related 422 22%

Delay 311 16%

Cancellation 297 15%

Denied boarding 75 4%

Other air passenger related 349 18%

Not specifi ed 474 25%

TOTAL 1928 100%

Information requests 2006

Complaints 2006

TOTAL %

Luggage related 978 33%

Cancellation 782 26%

Delay 465 16%

Denied boarding 195 7%

Other air passenger related 559 19%

TOTAL 2979 100%

Compared to the requests the ECC-Net received in 2005, the total number of contacts increased by 80%. The complaints received by the ECC-Net almost doubled (96%) in one year.

Since the 1 January 2007, ECC-Net has used a web based IT-Tool to register the contacts of consum-ers from all Centres in the Network. According to this database, ECC- Net received 1,538 complaints and disputes during the fi rst 6 months of 2007. These numbers are compa-rable with the numbers of 2006.

In April 2007, the European Commissioner for Transport, Mr Jacques Barrot, gave airlines a pe-riod of six months to comply with Regulation 261/2004. ECC-Net has not observed any improvement as of yet.

In relation to information requests, not all ECCs classifi ed them into distinct categories in 2006. For 474 information requests, the type of request was not specifi ed. From all the specifi ed information re-quests (1,454), the luggage related requests are the most frequent, followed by questions concerning delay and cancellation of fl ights. In the category “other air passenger related” questions were registered regarding time deadlines for check-in, cancellation or modifi cations of bookings, price displays, or retriev-ing charges for unused tickets.

The information requests on denied boarding are recorded as being the lowest. A reason for this might be that this is the clearest part of the European Regulation 261/2004 which governs air passenger rights, as it is a consolidated and amended version of the previous legislation - Regulation (EC) 295/915.

8

With regard to complaints, lug-gage related complaints are the most frequent, as in 2005. Con-sumers also frequently seek ad-vice or intervention from the ECCs when they are confronted with a problem of cancellation or delay.

It is interesting that luggage com-plaints top the list, as the Regula-tion 261/2004 does not cover lug-gage problems. Instead, luggage issues fall under the remit of an international convention – the Montreal Convention. The Montreal Convention6 is only en-forceable through the courts and there is currently no link between it and Regulation 261/2004 or with the remit of the National Enforce-ment Bodies (NEBs)7.

Furthermore, the category of ‘other air passenger related’ is in fact the third highest in terms of the number of complaints and these complaints concern issues that are neither covered by the Regulation 261/2004 or the Mon-treal Convention. Some of these issues (terms and conditions, re-turn of charges for unused fl ights) may be covered under other EU legislation, such as the Unfair Terms Directive or the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (although the deadline for the lat-ter to be transposed in all Mem-ber States is not until December 2007). With regard to the issue of price displays, the new European legislative proposal COM (2006) 0396, due to come into force by summer 2008, will clarify this is-sue. All of these pieces of legis-lation are enforceable by the vari-ous national consumer agencies and ombudsmen. This snapshot alone shows the need for syner-gy between the various actors in this area.

2979

1928

1521

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

10001195

0

2005 2006

complaintsInformation request

Number of contacts 2005 and 2006

Type of information requests 2005 and 2006

Luggage related Delay Cancellation Denied boarding Other airpassengerrelated

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0%

2006

2005

Type of complaints 2005 and 2006

Luggage related Delay Cancellation Denied boarding Other airpassengerrelated

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0%

35%

2006

2005

9

4.2 Importance of air travel complaints

Consumer contacts relating to travel form an important part of the overall contacts that ECC-Net receives. In many Member States, it is the most important topic con-sumers complain about when it comes to cross border purchas-es. Air travel complaints amount to an average of 14% of total com-plaints received for the whole of the ECC-Net.

Proportion of air travel contacts per ECC

in %

Latvia 38

Lithuania 32

Hungary 30

Spain 25

Slovenia 24

UK 24

Cyprus 23

Ireland 21

Poland 20

Sweden 17

Finland 16

Estonia 15

ECC-Net 14

Czech rep. 13

Iceland 10

Belgium 10

Portugal 10

Denmark 9

Slovakia 9

Greece 9

Germany 9

The Netherlands 9

Italy 5

Norway 5

France 4

Malta 3

Austria 3

Luxemburg 2

10

4.3 Complaints : country of the air carrier

Country of the air carrier

in %

Ireland 612 24%

Spain 435 17%

UK 230 9%

Italy 195 8%

Germany 172 7%

France 162 6%

Netherlands 96 4%

Latvia 91 4%

Denmark 69 3%

Belgium 49 2%

Hungary 48 2%

Sweden 46 2%

Portugal 41 2%

Czech Rep 37 1%

USA 32 1%

Slovakia 29 1%

Poland 25 1%

Austria 25 1%

Greece 21 1%

Norway 20 1%

Cyprus 8 <1%

Estonia 7 <1%

Switzerland 6 <1%

Iceland 4 <1%

Luxemburg 4 <1%

Lithuania 4 <1%

Finland 3 <1%

Malta 2 <1%

Bulgaria 2 <1%

Canada 1 <1%

Romania 1 <1%

Slovenia 1 <1%

Outside EEA 84 3%

Unknown 30 1%

TOTAL 2592

11

2005 2006 Increase in %Comparison

with general increase in complaints (index=100)

Ireland 218 612 181% 189

Spain 145 435 200% 209

UK 207 230 11% 12

Italy 168 195 16% 17

Germany 87 172 98% 102

France 68 162 138% 144

TOTAL COMPLAINTS 1521 2979 96% 100%

Country of air carrier - year on year increase

The total number of complaints received by the ECC-Net has in-creased by 96%. The top 6 air car-rier ‘countries of origin’ remain unchanged from the 2005 report fi ndings. However, the position of countries within the top 6 has shifted somewhat. While Ireland retains its top position, Spain, for example, has climbed from fourth to second place.

The index shown in the table above compares ‘country-spe-cifi c’ increase with the general

increase of 96%. It also demon-strates the changes in complaints against airlines in the top 6 coun-tries.

Compared to the 2005 results, the proportion of complaints against Spanish and Irish airlines has increased signifi cantly. One explanation could be found in the growth of the biggest Irish low cost airline, which transported more passengers than the year before (from 30.9 million in 2005 to 42.5 million passengers in 2006).

in %

Ireland 424 16%

Sweden 396 15%

Germany 274 10%

Spain 223 8%

Italy 207 8%

Belgium 193 7%

Poland 162 6%

Portugal 105 4%

Austria 104 4%

France 76 3%

Norway 70 3%

UK 69 3%

Greece 57 2%

Luxemburg 43 2%

Lithuania 40 2%

Finland 37 <1%

Denmark 24 <1%

Netherlands 18 <1%

Latvia 13 <1%

Slovakia 12 <1%

Czech Rep 11 <1%

Estonia 10 <1%

Hungary 10 <1%

Malta 9 <1%

Cyprus 9 <1%

Bulgaria 3 <1%

Slovenia 2 <1%

Switzerland 2 <1%

Iceland 1 <1%

Outside EEA 20 1%

unknown 6 <1%

TOTAL 2630 100%

Country of consumer 4.4 Complaints : country of the consumer

The largest number of com-plaints received by ECC-Net came from Irish, Swedish, German and Spanish consumers. Accord-ing to Eurostat8, the countries with the highest amount of air passen-gers are the UK (177,326/year), Germany (124,076/year) and Spain (104,675). However, this does not explain why countries with small populations, namely Ireland and Sweden, top the ECC-Net list of complainants in this area.

With regard to Irish consumers making complaints, it should be taken into account that, as the largest low cost airline in Europe is based in Ireland, the Irish me-dia pays much attention to the air passenger rights issue, which surely builds up Irish consumers’ awareness of their entitlements. This, along with the relatively high number of Irish residents travel-ling by air, due to geographical location and the current favour-able economic situation, impacts on the number of consumer com-plaints. A high number of com-plaints were also recorded from Swedish and German consum-ers. Here again, well developed Alternative Dispute Resolution systems, good domestic law cov-erage and a general culture of pursuing complaints plays a sig-nifi cant role.

12

13

1%12%

21% 7 %

42%17%

Resolved

Partially Resolved

Unresolved

Still open

Invalid claim

Other : don’t know outcome

Outcome of complaints

Breakdown of unresolved or partially resolved cases

Airline claimed “exceptional circumstances” 33%

Airline did not respond 30%

Airline met responsibilities under 261/2004 but not a claim for damages/expenses under the Montreal Convention

10%

Airline agreed to make payment in relation to expenses but not responsibilities under 261/2004

8%

Other 20%

TOTAL UNRESOLVED OR PARTIALLY RESOLVED CASES (28% of total cases) 100%

4.5 Outcome of complaints

42% of the complaints received by the ECC-Net were resolved, i.e. an amicable solution was found. 17 % of the cases are still open at the time of writing this report and 12 % of the claims were invalid, which is the same proportion as in 2005. Invalid claims are claims outside the time limits set out un-der legislation or when passen-gers believe they are entitled to compensation but in fact are not.

28% of cases stayed unresolved (21%) or were only partially re-solved (7%). An example of a par-tially resolved case is when the airline claims “extraordinary cir-cumstances”, but the consumer does not agree that the circum-stances were extraordinary. The consumer receives a refund of the part of the ticket not used but does not receive the compensa-tion foreseen by EC Regulation 261/2004. In this case, in relation to compensation, the ECC can do nothing more than to advise the consumer to complain to the NEB or to start a judicial procedure and to close the case as partially resolved. Another example of par-tially resolved claims is when lug-gage is lost and the airline only re-imburses a very small amount or, in the case of a cancellation, the airline only reimburses the ticket but does not comply with the right to care foreseen by Regula-tion 261/2004.

The main problem ECCs meet when trying to resolve cases is that airlines claim “extraordinary circumstances” in the case of a cancellation, but do not give any explanation about these circum-stances, or that airlines do not re-spond at all. ECCs also report that in cases where luggage was lost, it was often impossible for the consumer to provide proof of the value of the items that were con-tained therein. The large amount of cases which are still open is also partially due to the fact that airlines often take a very long time to respond.

When airlines do not respond to correspondence from ECCs, or when they do not appear to want to comply with Regulation

261/2004, it is impossible to fi nd an amicable solution. In these cases, ECCs will look for an Alternative Dispute Resolution body (ADR) which could take up the case. Under EC Regulation 261/2004, ECCs can also turn to the Na-tional Enforcement Bodies, des-ignated by the Member States. But, ADRs are scarce and the network of the National Enforce-ment Bodies was inconsistent in resolving individual consumer complaints. If the consumer can-not fi nd a solution through an ADR or through the NEBs, they have to go to court. Most consum-ers consider that cross-border ju-dicial proceedings are too expen-sive and time-consuming and so they stop seeking redress.

14

5.1 Collaboration with the National Enforce-ment Bodies9 (NEBs)

Article 16 of Regulation 261/2004 stipulates that “the body desig-nated by each Member State shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the rights of passen-gers are respected”. It further states that passengers may com-plain to any of these designated bodies about an alleged infringe-ment of the Regulation at any air-port situated on the territory of a Member State or concerning any fl ight from a third country to an airport situated on that territory.

According to a communication from the European Commis-sion10, the NEBs received 18,288 complaints from February 2005 to September 2006. Of these, 35% were complaints about can-cellations, 34% concerned delays and 7.1% related to denied board-ing. These fi gures correlate with the fi ndings of the ECC-Net, tak-ing into account that the ECC-Net also handles air passengers complaints that fall outside of the scope of Regulation 261/2004.

Only 14% of the cases received by the NEBs were resolved and set-tled. Sanctions were proposed for less than 1 % of the cases.

The experiences of the differ-ent ECCs in their collaboration with the NEBs are quite different. Some ECCs have a good coopera-tion with the NEB of their country (see section 6 on ECC-Net activi-ties), but in many instances ECCs encounter diffi culties in seeking the support of the different NEBs.

The ECC-Net experiences show that the varying actions of the NEBs result in uneven protection for consumers across Europe.

The main problems the ECCs re-ported when trying to solve a case with NEBs were :

• A different interpretation is given to article 16

• Some NEBs don’t intervenewith individual complaints

• Some only intervene with airlines from their own territory

• Some only intervene when the offence has happened on theirterritory

• Some refuse to intervene with complaints from consumers living in another Member State

• The “extraordinary circum-stances” are not thoroughly investigated

• Little or no enforcement of Regulation 261/2004

• No response or very long de-lays in responding to claims

• Some don’t handle the case if it is in another language

• Some NEBs do not act inde-pendently of the airline compa-nies

• There is not optimum coopera-tion between the NEBs

The ECC-Net and the NEBs should combine their efforts to ensure that air passengers can fully enjoy their rights. ECCs pri-mary concern is to fi nd redress for consumers, but ECCs are also interested in the enforcement of consumer legislation. NEBs primary concern is the enforce-ment of the Regulation 261/2004, but NEBs are also interested in the redress of consumers.The common ground between ECC-Net and the NEBs is clear. Synergies should continue to be developed in order to best pro-tect consumers.

Recommendations :

• That there is one clear interpre-tation of the tasks and responsi-bilities of the NEB

• That there is a good mutualcooperation between the NEBs

• That there is a good cooperation of the ECC with the NEB of its Member State

• That there is a good cooperation between the ECC-Net and NEBs.

5. Other agencies involved in resolving air passenger complaints

15

5.2 Collaboration with the Alternative Dispute Resolution Body (ADRs)

The European Commission and the consumer organisations are in general in favour of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) bod-ies, because they are designed as a cheap, effi cient and time saving alternative to court proceedings.

When the ECC cannot fi nd an amicable solution to the problem of the consumer, the ECC may seek a relevant ADR body with competence for resolving air trav-el complaints. The ECC may also forward the case to their national NEB for resolution, but depend-ing on the country it may be more practical to seek an ADR body that can help.

However, there are very few na-tional ADR bodies dealing with complaints in this sector. In fact in only 9 of the 27 countries where an ECC is established, an ADR body competent to deal with air passengers’ complaints11 exists. In 4 of these 9 countries, there is a general ADR body who can deal with these types of complaints12. In one country, Latvia, the Na-tional Enforcement Body (NEB) is also acting as an ADR body.

The success of national ADR bodies (for example, in the Scan-dinavian countries) in resolving air passengers’ complaints, shows their importance in ensuring that consumers can seek redress in an effi cient and inexpensive way. (In fact, the Dutch Minister

Eurlings and the French Minister Buissereau have gone so far as to call for the installation of a Europe wide ADR body).

Consumers increasingly buy air-line tickets over the Internet and some airlines sell their tickets only through the Internet. This re-sults in the fact that air passenger complaints are not confi ned to na-tional borders as they used to be in the pre-Internet era. Handling cross-border disputes requires a cross-border mechanism. This can be easily facilitated by ADR and such a mechanism would ensure that consumers are not penalised for shopping across borders.

Recommendations :

• That ADR bodies be developed on a national and a European level

• That the ADR bodies cover the EC Regulation 261/2004 and other relevant legislation, like the Montreal Convention.

5.3 Legal Action

In some circumstances, when a consumer cannot reach an ami-cable solution dealing directly with the airline and where the intervention of ECC-Net proves unsuccessful, and where there is neither a designated ADR body nor can the assistance of an NEB be offered, the consumer is left with no other option but to pursue the matter further through the courts.

Taking legal action is complex by its very nature; however, tak-ing legal action in a cross-border context involves signifi cant ex-pense, time, language problems, and travelling to the country of the air carrier. Given that ECC-NET or any other network acting at a European level cannot assist consumers in taking legal action, in most of these cases consumers are not prepared to go to court, particularly if the cost of doing so would exceed the amount of com-pensation claimed.

An interesting solution may be found, however, in the form of a small claims procedure that will allow consumers to pursue such claims without incurring the signifi cant expenses that legal action generally entails. The ex-perience of consumers residing in Ireland and the UK is worth highlighting, as their situation fares slightly better due to the existence and quite effi cient op-eration of their small claims court systems. The procedure is simple and relatively cheap, does not re-quire the engagement of a lawyer, and in some cases, disputes can be resolved without the consum-er actually appearing in court.

16

In the context of air travel related complaints, the small claims pro-cedure proved very helpful and effi cient in both Ireland and the UK, particularly as consumers can initiate a claim in their own national courts against any airline with a registered offi ce in that country.

The positive experience with the small claims procedure in the British Isles makes the introduc-tion of the European Small Claims Procedure, planned for 1 January 200913, most welcome. Although it is diffi cult to assess in advance its impact on the effi ciency of exercising consumers’ entitle-ments, it will hopefully simplify access to court procedures. The possibility of conducting a hear-ing via modern means of commu-nication technology, as envisaged by the legislation, is progressive and particularly welcome, as it will make it worthwhile for con-sumers to enforce their rights at great distances, even for disputes involving small amounts.

17

The ECC Network is in daily contact with individual consum-ers who turn to ECC-Net with questions on consumer issues, including questions on air pas-senger rights when there has been a problem with a fl ight. The Network also needs to reach out to consumers as a whole and make them aware of air passen-ger rights, and encourage them to claim their entitlements. To achieve this, all ECCs engage in information campaigns directed towards consumers.

ECC-Net also participates in meet-ings with stakeholders, such as the NEBs or representatives from airlines. Issuing press releases and fostering a good relationship with the media is also part of the information work of ECC-Net.

22 of the 27 ECCs have reported carrying out activities in relation to air passenger rights. These activities may be information campaigns, meetings, workshops etc14.

6.1 Information activities

In general, ECCs use their web-sites for communicating informa-tion on air passenger rights to con-sumers. On their websites, ECCs give information on legal rights, and updated information on legal developments, as well as news regarding air travel. An example of this occurred when certain air carriers from Sweden and Spain went out of business, and the ECCs of Sweden and Spain had information on their websites on how to proceed in order to make a claim against the air carrier.

Another means of informing con-sumers is through the production and distribution of written mate-rials, leafl ets, etc., on air passen-ger rights. ECC Denmark and Ire-land have also produced luggage tags containing information on air passenger rights, which have been distributed at airports by ECC staff. ECC Cyprus produced a poster on air passenger rights which was distributed to travel agents, consumer associations and relevant stakeholders.

ECC Lithuania organised several seminars for consumers in which air passenger rights were dis-cussed.

Other ECC initiatives worth men-tioning are those of ECC Denmark and ECC Austria. ECC Demark developed an SMS service, which air passengers stranded anywhere in Europe can use. The service is available in Danish and in English. The pas-senger simply sends an SMS with the word “fl y” to a certain phone

number, and gets an answer with detailed information on air pas-senger rights in the case of de-nied boarding, cancellation or de-lay, or in relation to lost, delayed or damaged luggage. ECC Aus-tria has put increased effort into reaching out to young air passen-gers, by regularly giving lectures for pupils on air passenger rights, and by contributing to the Euro-pean School Diary with a chapter on air passenger rights.

An important part of the informa-tive work carried out by the ECC Network is achieved through good relationships with the me-dia that many of the ECCs have established. The press releases issued from the ECCs spur the media to get in touch with the network, and generate articles in the daily press, as well as reports on the radio and television.

6. ECC Network activities in relation to Air Passenger Rights

18

6.2 Meetings with stakeholders

Many ECCs have participated in meetings with the National En-forcement Body (NEB) of their country: ECC Ireland, ECC Lithua-nia, ECC Poland and ECC Spain all report having participated in meetings with their NEBs, where air passenger rights were dis-cussed. ECC Finland reports hav-ing an ongoing dialogue with the NEB of Finland, as they work side by side in the same building.

Other ECCs have participated in meetings with other relevant authorities, such as relevant ministries for consumer protec-tion, transport, economic affairs and tourism.

ECC Austria, ECC Czech Repub-lic, and ECC Netherlands have all participated in such meetings.

ECC Estonia reports attending a meeting with the Ministry of Eco-nomic Affairs and the Ministry of Communications where the main discussion topic was how to as-certain the extraordinary circum-stances declared by an airline in the case of delayed or cancelled fl ight.

ECC Norway is a member of the working group for establishing an ADR body for air passenger rights in Norway, a project initi-ated by the Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications.

In addition, meetings have been held between ECC offi ces and representatives from business-es, air carriers, or associations of travel agents and air carriers.

ECC Cyprus had a meeting with the board of Airline Representa-tives in Cyprus, and also organ-ised a seminar on air passenger rights and package travel. ECC Belgium organised a seminar on the added value of ADR for enter-prises, which included a section on air passenger rights.

Some ECC offi ces, such as ECC Austria, ECC Latvia and ECC Ire-land, have good relationships with the air carriers of their country.

Two examples of the contact between the ECC Network and airlines are given by ECC Latvia and ECC Portugal. ECC Latvia established cooperation with the customer service department of their national air carrier, which facilitates the resolution of air passenger issues. ECC Portugal had a meeting with the national manager of a Spanish air car-rier in Portugal, and provided him with a list of Portuguese consum-ers´ claims against the air carrier, so that he could exert pressure on the air carrier’s head offi ce in Spain.

6.3 Skill enhancementMany ECC offi ces, such as ECC Austria, ECC Germany, ECC Hun-gary, ECC Spain and ECC Swe-den, have participated in semi-nars and conferences on the sub-ject of air passenger rights. In this way the ECC Network both strengthens its competence, and shares its knowledge with other stakeholders. Worth mentioning is the fi eld trip made by ECC Aus-tria to the Austrian Airlines Hang-ar at Vienna International Airport, in order to discuss the Regulation 261/2004 from a practical point of view.

19

7. Overall problems and recommendations

7.1 Luggage/baggage claims

During 2006, 29% of all informa-tion requests and 33% of all com-plaints and disputes involving air travel related to luggage. This means that in 2006 diffi culties with lost, damaged or delayed luggage remained the number one problem area.

Under the Montreal Convention when luggage is damaged, lost or delayed, a passenger is entitled to compensation of up to 1,000 Special Drawing Rights (SDR), which is approximately €1,04215. This is only a maximum amount that consumers can claim under the Montreal Convention, and since no detailed rules on how to calculate the compensation have been set, it is left entirely at the airline’s discretion to fi x the amount offered within the limit envisaged under this Convention.

This often causes a lot of confu-sion, particularly when the lug-gage is delayed. Although most airlines agree to refund the money paid by consumers for necessary replacement items on the produc-tion of receipts, it is entirely up to the air carriers to decide which items are indeed absolutely indis-pensable. Additionally, many air-lines refuse to pay any compensa-tion when the luggage is delayed on an inbound fl ight, if the fi nal destination is the consumer’s place of residence. The explana-tion given for this is that as pas-sengers are returning home, they have access to their personal be-longings and so there is no need for them to purchase any replace-ment items. This, in reality, may

not always prove justifi ed, espe-cially if consumers are returning home from a longer stay abroad or were carrying in their luggage items of particular, everyday use/need. Some airlines pay a one-off allowance or pay a set amount per day, up to a maximum number of days, and consider this as a fi nal and indisputable form of redress, regardless of the actual damage incurred by the consumer due to the delay in delivery.

An Italian consumer reported one such experience :

The consumer’s luggage went miss-ing on a fl ight with a Portuguese air-line. He reported this at the airport and was given a voucher of €240. As his luggage was missing for a long time, the consumer incurred much higher expenses than this. How-ever, the airline refused to pay any further compensation, stating that the voucher provided in advance was a total and fi nal form of com-pensation. Only after the interven-tion of the ECC, did the airline agree to offer full reimbursement.

It is also worth mentioning that consumers whose luggage was delayed are not always offered the immediate assistance desirable in such situations, and are left with no other choice but to purchase replacement items, not certain at that stage if they will even be able to obtain full reimbursement in the future.

Portuguese consumers took a fl ight to Gran Canaria with a Spanish air-line. At the airport they noticed that their luggage had not arrived. They complained immediately, but were provided with no information or as-sistance. Three days later, their lug-gage was found. In the meantime,

however, they had to purchase re-placement items at a value of €215. They later requested reimbursement of this amount and presented all the receipts. As the airline did not respond, the consumers requested the assistance of the ECC, who con-tacted the airline and obtained a re-fund of €120. Having no other choice, the consumers accepted the offer.

According to the information ob-tained from the questionnaire sub-mitted by ECCs, in 2006 proving the value of luggage was the sec-ond most common reason for not being able to resolve consumer complaints. When luggage is lost or damaged the burden of proof is levied on the more vulnerable and weaker party – the consumer, whilst the level of evidence required by airlines is in many instances ex-tremely diffi cult to meet.

When luggage is damaged, air-lines will always look for a proof of purchase of the luggage itself. The amount of compensation offered will vary, depending on whether the luggage was dam-aged, or completely destroyed. This will always raise the question as to whether or not the suitcase is still in useable condition. This again can be argued, but airlines in many cases will insist that the damage to the luggage was minor and was a result of a normal wear and tear.

Some airlines will offer a replace-ment bag, rather than monetary compensation. Given that the value of the suitcase will depend on numerous features, such as brand, quality or price, offering a replacement bag of the airline’s choice may not necessarily be considered a satisfactory form of compensation.

20

When luggage is lost, most air carriers require receipts, not only for the luggage itself but also for all its contents. In most of the complaints received by ECCs, this requirement was very diffi cult, or even impossible, to satisfy. Even when consumers are in a position to produce proof of purchase, airlines will usually apply a de-preciation rate when calculating reimbursement. There are no set deprecation rates in place and therefore it is left entirely at the discretion of the air carriers. Even in circumstances when consum-ers are in a position to produce receipts, it is sometimes such a surprise for the airline that they simply stop dealing with the complaint at all. This gives the impression that airlines impose such strict requirements mainly to prevent consumers from seek-ing redress.

One European consumer had the following experience when deal-ing with an Irish airline:

The consumer’s luggage was lost on a fl ight from Budapest to Dublin. He fi lled out a PIR at Dublin airport and complained to the air carrier in writing. He was then informed that he needed to provide receipts for items contained in the luggage. He subsequently went directly to the airline’s offi ce at Dublin airport and handed in documents and receipts. He followed up with a letter but heard nothing back at all. ECC Dub-lin wrote to the airline on numer-ous occasions but the case had to be closed as unresolved, due to the lack of response from the airline.

Worth noting is also the fact that most airlines would advise against including in checked-in luggage certain items such as money, jew-

ellery, keys, cameras, computers, medicines, spectacles, sunglass-es, contact lenses, watches, mo-bile phones, personal electronic devices, cigarettes, tobacco, passports, etc. This means that should these items be contained in the luggage, the air carrier will take no responsibility for their damage or loss, and therefore will pay no compensation. While some of these exclusions seem to be justifi ed, others such as ciga-rettes or medicine, which could not be regarded as valuable or fragile, may raise certain doubts. In any case, consumers are usu-ally unaware of these exceptions, until their luggage is lost and they try to claim compensation.

Terms and conditions with regard to checked-in luggage allow-ances and charges may often be far from comprehensive, and as a result, consumers are not aware as to how many pieces of luggage they are allowed to check in or take on board.

It has been highlighted in the ECC-Net’s 2006 Report Air Passen-ger Rights : Consumer Complaints 2005 that the relevant time limits outlined in the Montreal Conven-tion are very strict and short, and therefore consumers are very of-ten deprived of the possibility to claim from airlines. In 2006, this problem continued to exist and it is still very often a huge surprise for consumers, when they learn that the time to complain has elapsed while they were still away on holidays.

What is also very worrying is the amount of luggage being lost by airlines every year. As an exam-ple, one of the UK-based airlines during only one year failed to de-

liver 1,300,000 pieces of luggage. 200,000 of these seem to have been lost defi nitively. Assuming that each piece was approximate-ly 15 kg, this represents 3,000 tons of luggage lost by only one airline. The question arises, therefore, as to how this is possible in a strictly controlled environment like an air-port and whether airlines indeed do whatever is in their power to fi nd the lost bags.

Recommendations :

• That the legislation concerning fl ight cancellation, delay and denied boarding and the legisla-tion concerning delayed, lost or damaged luggage are brought together in one piece of EU legislation

• That in the case of luggage delay, consumers should re-ceive guidelines on what sort of replacement items they are entitled to purchase

• That consumers should have the option of requesting a down payment from the air carrier in order to purchase “emergency items”

• That airlines respect the con-sumers’ right to compensation for costs due to delay of lug-gage, which is not conditional on whether it was an inbound or outbound fl ight

21

• That the completion of the PIR should count as the initial claim

• That in the event of the passen-ger not being able to produce any proof of purchase of the lug-gage or its contents, standard fi gures agreed with insurance representatives should apply

• That when the consumer is able to prove the value of the item, the full amount should be paid by the air carrier, or in the case of older items, a uniform system of depreciation rates should apply

• That the only form of redress is monetary compensation, rather than replacement bags

• That all airlines have reason-able and comprehensive lists of checked-in items for which liability is excluded

• That the airlines have an obliga-tion to provide passengers with written information about their entitlements at the airports when problems with luggage are concerned.

7.2 Flight delay & cancellation In 2006, 16% of all information re-quests and 21% of all complaints and disputes related to air travel concerned fl ight delay, while those regarding fl ight cancella-tion comprised 20% and 26% re-spectively.

Both fl ight cancellation and delay are regulated by Regulation (EC) No. 261/200416, introduced in Feb-ruary 2005. Under the provisions of this Regulation, in the case of delay, passengers are enti-tled to free meals/refreshments and telephone calls ; if the delay involves an overnight stay, the airline should also provide free hotel accommodation. These en-titlements (meals/refreshments, phone calls and accommodation) are collectively called the “right to care”. Additionally, once the de-lay is over 5 hours, the option of not fl ying with the airline and ob-taining a full refund of the ticket should be given to passengers.

The type of complaints received by ECCs in 2006 shows that one of the main problems consumers encounter is that many airlines tend to offer a refund of expenses incurred, payable at a later stage, rather than to provide relevant assistance up-front. This raises the question as to whether or not airlines are complying with their obligations in the manner envis-aged under the Regulation. Many consumers do not keep receipts or perhaps would not consider it worthwhile to complain when only the reimbursement of refresh-ments is involved, and therefore it would seem that the policy of these airlines proves to be more

profi table for them. Also, given the cross-border context of these complaints, very often the cost of exercising consumers’ rights may exceed the amount due. It is important to remember that the “right to care” is concerned with the provision of these services at the time, not with reimbursing them at a later stage.

Another problem that has been brought to the attention of ECCs is that despite the obligation imposed under Reg. 261/2004, airlines do not provide consum-ers with information about their entitlements in the case of fl ight delay, cancellation or denied boarding.

An interesting example is given by ECC Belgium :

A Belgian couple with their three children were fl ying back to Brus-sels from their holidays in Rome. At the airport, their fl ight was fi rst delayed, then cancelled. The only in-formation they received was that the airline was not responsible and that they would probably be able to fl y the following evening. Because they feared that they would not be able to fi nd any available accommodation in the middle of the tourist season in Rome and did not want to spend the night at the airport with their three children, they decided to look for an alternative fl ight on their own. They managed to purchase fl ight tickets to the Netherlands, and then continued by train. This journey cost them more than the whole holi-days in Italy. After the intervention of ECC Belgium, the consumers obtained a refund of the tickets not used, which was trivial when com-pared with the other expenses they faced. Had the consumers been informed about their rights and of-

22

fered relevant assistance within the “right to care”, this problem would not have arisen.

Regulation 261/2004 states that in the event of fl ight cancellation, consumers should be informed about it beforehand and offered reasonable re-routing. Otherwise, consumers are entitled to either the refund of the ticket not used, or rerouting to the fi nal place of destination. They are also enti-tled to the same “right to care” as passengers, whose fl ights are delayed, and also, in general, to additional monetary compensa-tion. The level of compensation depends on the distance of the fl ight and should be payable to the passenger, unless the reason for cancellation was due to ex-traordinary circumstances.

The experience of ECC-Net shows that, in practice, obtain-ing compensation in the event of a fl ight cancellation is very diffi -cult, or even impossible. In many of these cases, there are no legal grounds for the airline’s refusal. The following example from Swe-den illustrates this problem well. Although during 2006 and 2007 the Swedish National Board of Consumer Complaint has decid-ed in favour of the consumer in 35 separate cases against one of the Irish airlines, in 22 of these cases the air carrier simply refused to follow the recommendation of the board. In light of this, the Swed-ish Consumer Ombudsman has decided to assist a Swedish cou-ple, seeking compensation under EC Reg. 261/2004, with their claim in civil court.

When the difference between delay and cancellation is considered, the legislation is not

comprehensive. Namely, it is not clear when the delay becomes a cancellation. It would be rea-sonable to consider that delays longer than 24 hours are, in fact, cancellations. This should also apply in the majority of situa-tions where an overnight stay is involved. This issue has been a subject of much confusion and debate. Art 2 (l) of the Regulation defi nes cancellation as the “non-operation of a fl ight which was previously planned and on which at least one place was reserved”. At the same time, the Regulation does not specify the maximum length of the delay. The question is whether, if in the case where a fl ight is “delayed” more than 24 hours, it can indeed still be called a delay, or should rather be considered a cancellation. The answer to this question is of signifi cant importance, since compensation will be due only in the case of the latter. Airlines, in order to avoid paying compen-sation, tend to maintain that the fl ight is only delayed.

The German Bundesgerichtshof has recently suspended national proceedings in a case before it and asked the European Court of Justice for guidance as to how Article 2(l) of the Reg. 261/2004 should be interpreted.

In this case, the claimants booked a return charter fl ight between Frank-furt and Toronto. The return fl ight did not take off due to a technical failure. After waiting several hours, passengers were requested to take their luggage back and they spent a night in a hotel. They were not able to take their fl ight until the follow-ing day. They reached their destina-tion with a delay of around 25 hours. They claimed compensation of €600,

but the air carrier refused to pay on the grounds that the fl ight had been delayed rather than cancelled.The Amtgericht and the Berufungs-gericht rejected the claim, consider-ing that it was indeed a delay. The claimants have now taken their case to the Bundesgerichtshof which has referred a question to the European Court of Justice to clarify the cir-cumstances in which a long delay becomes a cancellation.

The case has not been registered before the European Court of Jus-tice yet, but hopefully the opinion given will clarify the situation and is therefore much anticipated.

As mentioned before, when a fl ight is cancelled, passengers are entitled to additional compen-sation, unless :

• they have been informed of the cancellation two weeks or more in advance or,

• they have been informed of the cancellation less than two weeks before the departure time and were offered reason-able re-routing, or

• the cancellation was due to “extraordinary circum-stances”.

The phrase “extraordinary cir-cumstances” is not defi ned in the legislation. All that is provided is the non-exhaustive list of exam-ples, such as political instability, weather conditions, security risks, strikes and unexpected safety shortcomings. In 2006, for most of the unresolved cases, the reason given by airlines for not paying compensation to the consumer was “force majeure”. The fre-quency of usage of this exception,

23

together with the lack of uniform interpretation of this term and lack of guidance as to the type of evidence required, raises the sus-picion that this defence is vastly overused by airlines, in order to avoid the obligation to pay com-pensation to consumers. Even in the case of circumstances clearly within the airline’s control, such as pilot error, air carriers are try-ing to take advantage of the force majeure defence, as the following example shows :

An UK consumer was due to fl y from Derry to Liverpool with an Irish air carrier. The fl ight was cancelled due to a pilot error. The consumer complained to the airline, but was refused compensation as the air-line claimed “extraordinary circum-stances”. After the intervention of the ECC, the airline fi nally agreed to pay compensation of €250, but “as a gesture of good will”!

It is important that consumers are aware that the “right to care” applies in all circumstances, ir-respective of the reason for the delay or cancellation, and the “ex-ceptional circumstances” can be invoked only when the additional compensation is concerned. Sur-prisingly enough, some airlines tend to invoke “extraordinary cir-cumstances” even in the case of a fl ight delay :

A German consumer’s fl ight from Frankfurt to Stansted was delayed 4 hours. He was offered no assist-ance during this time and was ad-vised to submit receipts at a later date for reimbursement. When he did so, the airline refused to refund him, claiming that the fl ight was delayed for reasons beyond their control and therefore no reimburse-ment was due! After the interven-

tion of the ECC, a full refund of all expenses was obtained.

In September 2006, the Danish Ostre Landsret asked the Euro-pean Court of Justice a prelimi-nary question as to whether or not a technical problem with the aircraft, resulting in a cancella-tion of the fl ight, constitutes an “extraordinary circumstance”. In his opinion17, the Advocate Gen-eral states :

The circumstances, in order to be considered “extraordinary”, have to fi rst of all result in both withdrawal of the aircraft from operation and the unavailability of providing a re-placement. At the same time, the circumstances have to be both una-voidable and extraordinary in the normal sense of the word. There are therefore certain aspects that have to be taken into account, such as :

• Whether the airline complied with the schedule of maintenance and checks of the aircraft,

• Whether every reasonable step has been taken to resolve the technical problem without with-drawing the aircraft from opera-tion,

• Whether this kind of technical problem could be considered typical for the particular aircraft or whether it occurred before

• Whether there was adequate pro-vision of replacement aircraft, in light of previous experience

The above guidelines might be useful in the future, whenever a consumer’s claim is considered before court and airlines invoke a technical problem as a reason for cancellation. However, the opin-

ion does not provide any set rules that would be useful in resolving disputes in an out-of-court man-ner.

Other “extraordinary circum-stances”, weather conditions in particular, remain very vaguely defi ned, which gives airlines the opportunity to abuse this provi-sion of the legislation.

Also the problem of reliability of evidence remains. Although the burden of proof that the cir-cumstances were extraordinary lies with airlines, there is no guid-ance about the type and level of evidence. The only guidance this far is the opinion of the Advo-cate General mentioned above, according to which the admissi-bility and probative value of the evidence needs to be assessed in respect of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. This however does not clarify the issue, and certainly does not im-prove the consumer’s position, since it is almost impossible for them to challenge the arguments put forward by airlines. At the same time, airlines are making no effort in providing any evidence to consumers and simply refuse to pay compensation, as the ex-ample below shows :

In response to a consumer request for compensation due to a fl ight cancellation, all one of the airlines wrote was :“With regards to your compensation claim, I regret to advise that fl ight X was cancelled for safety reasons, outside our control, no compensa-tion is due”.

24

Recommendations :

• That some sections of Regula-tion 261/2004, such as those concerning fl ight delay or can-cellation, contain more clearly worded defi nitions

• That in cases where a consumer was not offered assistance within the “right to care” and is forced to seek reimbursement of expenses afterwards, they can claim additional compensa-tion

• That penalty charges are im-posed on airlines by NEBs for not providing passengers with written information at the air-port about their entitlements in the case of delay, cancellation or denied boarding

• That penalty charges are levied by NEBs on air carriers, whose general policy is to refund the expenses rather than offer as-sistance

• That delay is clearly defi ned in legislation, in the context of both its maximum length and overnight stay

• That NEBs handle complaints concerning damages resulting from a delayed fl ight

• That, in order to comply with already existing legislation, which levies the burden of proof on the air carrier, whenever “extraordinary circumstances” are invoked, the air carrier has to provide evidence of it

• That NEBs assist consumers with obtaining contra-evidence whenever “extraordinary cir-cumstances” are invoked

• That a uniform, comprehensive and detailed system of assess-ing the value of evidence sup-plied by airlines is created

7.3 Denied boardingAlthough the number of infor-mation requests and complaints received by ECC-Net in relation to denied boarding (5% and 7%, respectively) is much lower than complaints related to fl ight de-lay, cancellation or problems with luggage, it causes considerable inconvenience to consumer. In the event of denied boarding due to overbooking, consumers are entitled to reimbursement of the ticket or rerouting, the “right to care” and monetary compensa-tion. It seems reasonable that if the airline is ready to take the risk and allow more passengers to book fl ights than there are seats, it should be ready to assume re-sponsibility to pay suitable com-pensation.

In 2006, apart from complaints related to overbooking, ECC-Net received a number of complaints in relation to denied boarding due to passengers not being able to present necessary documenta-tion at the check-in desk (accept-able form of photo I.D., visas, tran-sit visas, etc.). It is clearly stated in the terms and conditions of most air carriers that it is entirely the passenger’s responsibility to en-sure that they are in possession of the necessary documentation. ECCs were, however, informed about situations where consum-ers enquired about the required documentation in relevant em-bassies and consulates before-hand, but were still denied board-ing. The reason given for this was that the documentation was not in compliance with airlines’ own internal lists of documentary re-quirements. In such cases, air-lines refused to pay compensa-tion, claiming that passengers

25

were not denied boarding within the meaning of legislation.

Two Estonian consumers were fl y-ing from Stockholm to Krabi, Thai-land with a Swedish air carrier. When they presented themselves at the check-in desk, they were in-formed that they could not fl y, be-cause they were missing Thai visas. The consumers had to travel back to Estonia at their own expense. While organising the trip, the con-sumers made thorough research regarding all the relevant travelling documents needed. According to information available on the website of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in Thailand, and also the Estonian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Esto-nian citizens could purchase visas on arrival to Thailand. Furthermore, this information was confi rmed by Thai Consulate in Stockholm. After arriving back home, the con-sumers made a formal complaint to the airline and requested com-pensation. The air carrier, however, refused compensation, claiming that they acted in compliance with TIM (Travel Information Manual). According to the air carrier, TIM was considered as a world standard guidance on air travel documenta-tion requirements.Because of the confl ict between the information provided by different sources, even after the intervention of ECC-Net, no one took responsibil-ity for the damage suffered by the consumers.

ECCs also dealt with complaints where consumers fully complied with provisions of Terms & Condi-tions relating to passports and vi-sas, but were still prevented from boarding :

ECC Ireland received a complaint from Italian consumers, who were

fl ying from Bolzano to Stockholm. Their children were denied boarding because they did not have photos in their parents’ passports. However, according to the airline’s booking confi rmation, this was not obligato-ry for Italian children under the age of 16 in possession of a valid birth certifi cate, which the consumers had with them. ECC Ireland con-tacted the airline and obtained com-pensation for denied boarding. The airline also corrected their Terms & Conditions in order to avoid such situations in the future.

Recommendations :

• That one universal register of required travel documentation is created and used by all air carriers

• That if the passenger has been denied boarding due to what the airline deemed to be insuffi cient documentation and the passen-ger afterwards can prove that the documentation was indeed suffi cient, then the passenger should be entitled to compensa-tion for the denied boarding

7.4 Claims for consequential damagesECC-Net received a number of complaints from consumers in re-lation to additional expenses they incurred as a result of a fl ight de-lay or cancellation. As mentioned before, under Reg. 261/2004 con-sumers are entitled to free accom-modation, refreshments, phone calls, etc., and even if these are not provided beforehand by the airline, consumers are often able to obtain reimbursement, either through direct contact with the airline or where the ECC acts on their behalf. Very often, however, consumers incur other types of damages, such as lost days of holiday, lost days of work (and consequently, loss of earnings), missing pre-booked accommo-dation, car rentals, buses, trains, cruises, ticketed events or impor-tant personal appointments.

An Austrian consumer’s fl ight from Newquay to London was cancelled. The consumer had already booked another fl ight with a different airline from London to Budapest, and then a train from Budapest to Vienna. She enquired about alternative fl ights to London; she was advised that there was none. When she requested infor-mation about a connection by coach or train, the airline failed to assist her. She also asked about the possi-bility of using the phone, but again she was refused any assistance. As a result she missed her subse-quent fl ight and train connection, and had to book new fl ights. The ECC contacted the airline and re-quested the refund of the ticket not used under Reg. 261/2004, along with compensation for the money

26

paid for the other fl ights and train connection under the Montreal Convention. The airline refunded the ticket not used, but decided that no further compensation was due.

According to the terms of the Montreal Convention, air carriers are liable for damages occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers or baggage. When it comes to delay in the carriage of persons, this liability is limited to 4,150 SDR (approx. €4,550)18. The Convention does not stipulate which types of damages are cov-ered. As a result, it is diffi cult for consumers to establish in an out-of-court manner which damages airlines would be responsible for. In light of this situation, the in-troduction of the European small claims court procedure, which is set to come into operation on 1 January 2009, will certainly prove practical.

While airlines are evidently unwill-ing to recognise the requirements under the Montreal Convention to compensate passengers for damages resulting from delay in the carriage of persons, experi-ence shows that airlines are more willing to honour their obligations and compensate passengers for damages caused in the delay of luggage. However, aside from the typical damages that can be directly attributable to the airline (see section 7.1. “Luggage/Dam-age Claims”), certain problems have been observed when it comes to claiming for consequen-tial damages.

An Irish consumer, who at the time was living in Australia, took a fl ight from Rome to London. Her lug-gage was delayed 6 weeks. In the meantime she returned to Australia.

When her luggage was found, it was delivered by the airline to Lon-don. The consumer had to pay over €250 for its delivery to Australia. She complained to the airline, but could not obtain any reimbursement of this cost through her direct contact with the air carrier. After the inter-vention of the ECC, the money was refunded to her.

In the above case, the explanation given by the airline was that they were contracted to deliver the luggage to the fi nal destination of the fl ight – London. However, the ECC argued that the expenses incurred by the consumer were clearly resulting from a mistake on the air carrier’s side, and that under the Montreal Convention, the air carrier is liable for “dam-ages occasioned by delay in the carriage of luggage”, which was the case here.

Recommendations:

• That the remit of NEBs is ex-tended and the power of investi-gating claims for consequential damages is given to them

• That the European small claims procedure, once introduced, is available for consumers in such cases

7.5 Other air travel related queries

7.5.1 Price display

In order to make it possible for consumers to effectively com-pare the tariffs between airlines, it is essential that the prices of the tickets displayed in advertise-ments and on websites include all applicable taxes, charges and fees. At the moment airlines try to compete on the market by adver-tising very low prices, even reach-ing the level of 1 cent. However, when consumers reach the end of the booking process, the price may vastly increase, through the addition of all sorts of supple-mentary charges, such as airport charges, government taxes, bag-gage fees, credit card charges, fuel surcharges, etc. Clearly this blurs the picture for consumers and is misleading for them. ECC-Net also received complaints about price differences, depend-ing on the country of residence of a consumer.

The proposal of the European Commission of 18 July 2006 on common rules for the operation of air transport services19, aiming to promote price transparency, should be a welcome improve-ment of the situation. In this pro-posal, all fares advertised have to include all applicable taxes, charges and fees. In other words, the price advertised should equal the total cost the consumer will incur when purchasing the ticket. In addition, the proposal seeks to eliminate discriminatory pricing on the basis of consumers’ coun-try of residence.

27

It happens that passengers, for various reasons, decide not to fl y, and although it does happen that passengers simply do not show at the check-in desk, most of them contact airlines in advance and cancel their booking. This affords air carriers the very real possibility of reselling the seats. However, re-gardless of how much in advance consumers cancel their booking, the tickets are non-refundable. All that the consumer can claim in such a situation are supplemen-tary charges payable to the third party (such as airport charges and government taxes), but the refund of these “third party fees” can be the subject of a further adminis-tration fee. Even when the reason they cannot fl y is outside of their control, it is quite unlikely that they will be able to obtain a refund of the ticket. As ECC Spain duly points out, “one of the major reasons for not paying compensation by airlines in case of fl ight cancellation is force majeure. On the other hand it is al-most impossible for a consumer to cancel the booking, even in the case of serious illness, which is indeed a real force majeure situation”.

A consumer booked a fl ight with an Irish air carrier. A few days before the fl ight, his brother died and the consumer could not fl y. He contact-ed the airline, provided them with a death certifi cate and requested a refund of the money paid, explain-ing that the reason he could not fl y was sudden and beyond his con-trol. However, the airline refused to refund the money, quoting their Terms & Conditions and stating that the tickets were non-refundable.

One can not help but to have the impression that this is simply air-lines applying a double standard, which reinforces the belief that it is the consumer who is indeed the weaker party.

It is worth mentioning that not only are there issues with cancel-ling a booking, but even minor modifi cations made to bookings, such as the correction of name misspellings, are subject to an unreasonably high handling fee. What is more, it is not clear why the administration fee applies per person, rather than per booking, if the same amount of administra-tive work is involved. This surely makes a signifi cant difference when one booking is made for a larger number of passengers.

As mentioned before, passengers who do not fl y can claim back these charges incorporated into the total price of the ticket which are payable to other entities, such as airports or governments. How-ever, the handling fee for process-ing the refund very often exceeds the amount due, which thus makes the consumer’s claim futile. There is no specifi c legislation under which airlines are required to re-fund these charges. Nor is there any law that prevents them from charging an administration fee for processing the refund. So far, there has been no legal challenge to this practice of airlines through the courts. However, it is interest-ing to note that the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman issued a fi ne to an Irish low cost airline for continuing to charge passengers when refunding taxes and fees for unused tickets20. Nevertheless, a complete lack of uniformity and transparency of such charges/fees remains.

A Danish consumer cancelled a fl ight with an Irish airline from London to Aarhus, Denmark. The consumer asked the airline to refund the taxes and other fees associated with the cancelled fl ight, but the air-line declined due to the tickets being non-refundable. The ECC contacted the airline on the consumer’s behalf and the airline replied as follows :“Our Terms & Conditions state that all our tickets are non-refundable, and that applications for tax refunds are subject to an administration charge of 10GBP per passenger. Please note that all other fees and charges, such as the passenger service charge, aviation insurance and credit & debit card handling fees are non-refundable, as they are paid irrespective of fl ight being used. Our records show that the amount of the government tax paid in relation to your unused fl ight was 5GBP.” As the administration fee exceeded the tax refund amount in this case, no refund was paid.

The application of administra-tion charges is particularly strik-ing when the need for making a change result from a fault that did not necessarily arise on the pas-senger’s side. Consumers report-ed to ECC-Net situations where they were incorrectly charged for their booking. When they con-tacted the air carrier in order to correct the inaccuracy/error, an administration fee was applied. The ECC-Net also received com-plaints in relation to not receiving any booking confi rmation at all, or duplicate or triplicate bookings being accepted, due to technical problems with the air carriers’ websites. Granted, mistakes and problems certainly occur, however it does not seem just to penalise the consumer for them.

7.5.2 Modifying or cancelling a booking, booking online& “taxes, fees & charges”

28

A Danish consumer booked a re-turn fl ight from Malmö to London. Before going, he wished to change the return fl ight (London- Malmö) but due to a very high handling fee, he simply decided to cancel the re-turn leg of his fl ight and purchase a new one. However, when he arrived at the airport in Malmö to take the fl ight to London, it transpired that the airline had cancelled not only the return fl ight, but also the out-bound fl ight. As a result, the con-sumer had to pay a much higher amount at the airport then he had paid previously, in order to get a new reservation Malmö-London at the last minute. He wrote to the air-line afterwards, but the reply that he received was that the tickets were non-refundable, which was not re-ally an answer to his question. After the ECC intervention, the consumer received a full refund.

Recommendations :

• That consumers who cancel their bookings are refunded all “third party fees” subject to a reasonable administration fee

• That legislation regulating “third party fees” is created

• That the booking confi rmation includes a clear and comprehen-sive breakdown of all the sup-plementary charges, indicating what they are for and who they are payable to

A further problem reported to the ECC-Net by consumers during 2006 was the missing of connect-ing fl ights due to delays. It may happen that a fl ight, constitut-ing the fi rst sector of a journey, is delayed, and as a result, the pas-senger misses their subsequent fl ights. Even if they manage to make it to the boarding gate on time, they may still be denied boarding, given that there is not enough time to transfer their lug-gage from one aircraft to another. It is crucial that consumers are aware of the fact that their entitle-ments in such a situation will dif-fer, depending on whether the two fl ights were made as one book-ing or not. Many “point-to-point” airlines will not give consumers the possibility of booking two consecutive fl ights during one reservation. In such situations, if consumers miss their subsequent fl ight, they will be treated as pas-sengers who simply did not show at the check-in desk on time.

If, however, both fl ights are from the one booking, the consumer should remain under the care of the air carrier until they reach the fi nal destination of their journey, and all of the entitlements deriv-ing from Regulation 261/2004 would apply.

While no provision for compen-sation for delay is provided for under Regulation 261/2004, there is provision for damages caused by delay under the Montreal Con-vention. Therefore, if a journey is

booked to allow suffi cient transfer time and if the consumer incurs extra expenses (such as buying a new fl ight ticket) due to the delay of the fi rst fl ight, damages can be claimed. This provision comes with a caveat however, in that air-lines are not liable for such dam-ages if they can prove that they took all reasonable measures to avoid the delay.

An Irish consumer reported the following experience:

The consumer booked a fl ight from Dublin to Cape Town, via Amster-dam with a Dutch air carrier. The fl ight from Dublin to Amsterdam was delayed, and as a result the con-sumer missed his subsequent fl ight from Amsterdam to Cape Town. As the next available fl ight was on the following day, the consumer had to stay overnight in Amsterdam. No assistance, except for a €10 voucher and 5-minute phone card, was of-fered to the consumer, nor was any assistance or information provided as to fi nding accommodation. Ad-ditionally, when the consumer ar-rived in Cape Town, his luggage was missing. After the intervention of the ECC, the consumer received compensation for all the expenses incurred.

In the above example, the consum-er was still under the care of the airline, and therefore should have been provided with assistance in the same manner as passengers whose fl ights are delayed.

It is worth mentioning that fre-quently, where different airlines are involved, consumers have problems in identifying the re-sponsible airline and the relevant NEB to complain to. This is par-ticularly diffi cult where luggage is

7. 5.3 Connecting fl ights, involvement of different airlines, & return/one way fl ights

29

lost or damaged during a journey comprising numerous fl ights with different airlines, and none of the air carriers involved want to take responsibility.

One further observation that mer-its comment was raised by ECC Germany:

“According to the general conditions of airlines, consumers often cannot make use of their return ticket if they do not use the outward fl ight.”

We should note that air carriers adopt such a policy in situations where the price of return tickets are lower than the price of a one-way ticket and they do not wish consumers to take advantage of this by booking return tickets where they intend to take one leg of the journey only.

Whether or not such a clause in an airline’s general conditions is valid has not been decided, but such a condition has to be con-sidered unfair and should be dis-cussed further in the future.

7.6 Dealing with airlinesIn 2006, consumers also brought to the attention of ECC-Net vari-ous problems they faced when trying to address their complaint to the airline.

First of all, it may be very diffi cult to establish contact details for the air carrier. If the consumer places no trust in the email complaint form available on the air carrier’s website, often the only alternative for the consumer is contacting customer service information via phone. Given that these are usu-ally charged at premium rates, additional expenses are levied on consumers, even though they are trying to make a valid claim.

Once the airline’s contact details are obtained and a letter of com-plaint is sent, consumers very often have to wait quite a long time for the airlines to respond. Also of particular importance in a cross-border context is the fact that airlines would usually only accept complaints written in certain languages (in English, or in the language of the country where the airline is based). Surely no one could expect air carriers to deal with complaints written in all existing languages ; however, the question arises as to whether it would be reasonable to expect them to deal at least with com-plaints written in all those lan-guages in which online booking completion is possible.

According to the information ob-tained from the questionnaire submitted by ECCs, in 2006 non-response from the airline was the main reason why the complaint

could not be resolved. If airlines fail to at least reply to the corre-spondence sent to them by their local ECC, it is hard to even imag-ine the number of complaints sent to air carriers directly by consum-ers that are simply ignored. One cannot help having the impres-sion that this attitude results from the belief that a consumer based in another country will not decide to pursue legal action against the airline.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that even though some ECCs have developed working relationship with their local airlines, which in most cases signifi cantly fa-cilitates communication, it is of-ten still impossible for them to enforce consumers’ rights.

Recommendations :

• That all airlines make available their contact details to com-plain, via telephone, email and post

• That a reasonable time limit for dealing with complaints is out-lined in the legislation

• That NEBs levy penalty fi nes on airlines which blatantly fail to respond to consumers’ complaints

• That it is possible to complain in the same language in which the passenger booked the ticket

30

The purpose of this report is to present a statistical overview of the complaints relating to air travel received by ECC-Net in 2006, compare them to the fi gures from 2005, stress the main prob-lems encountered and suggest recommendations. The fi ndings of this year’s report confi rm the fi ndings of the previous report, in that consumers are still facing diffi culties when travelling by air.

The number of complaints re-ceived by ECC-Net in 2006 almost doubled in comparison to 2005. The number of European pas-sengers taking fl ights has been constantly increasing during the last couple of years, and consid-ering the growth of some of the airlines operating in Europe it will be interesting to see whether this increase continues.

Throughout the whole report, we have attempted to point out ex-isting gaps in legislation, some dubious practices and policies of airlines, diffi culties resulting from the lack of development of an ADR system or a fully func-tional NEB network, and a need for introducing a simplifi ed way of taking cross-border legal ac-tion against airlines. We have also made suggestions as to how to rectify existing problems and all these recommendations are now presented in this last section.

Finally, we wish to point out that the ECC-Net will continue in its role of providing information and assistance in resolving consum-ers’ disputes amicably. However, it is essential that a more devel-oped system of ADRs is created, that the functioning of NEBs is improved, that the European Small Claims Procedure is intro-

duced, and that some of the air-lines’ practices and policies are modifi ed.

Legislation related recommendations

• That the legislation concerning fl ight cancellation, delay and denied boarding and the leg-islation concerning delayed, lost or damaged luggage are brought together in one piece of EU legislation

• That in the case of luggage delay, consumers should re-ceive guidelines on what sort of replacement items they are entitled to purchase

• That consumers should have the option of requesting a down payment from the air carrier in order to purchase “emergency items”

• That the completion of the PIR should count as the initial claim

• That in the event of the passen-ger not being able to produce any proof of purchase of the luggage or its contents, stand-ard fi gures agreed with insur-ance representatives should apply

• That when the consumer is able to prove the value of the item, the full amount should be paid by the air carrier, or in the case of older items, a uniform system of depreciation rates should apply

• That the only form of redress is monetary compensation, rath-er than replacement bags

• That the airlines have an obli-gation to provide passengers with written information about their entitlements at the air-ports when problems with lug-gage are concerned

• That some sections of Regula-tion 261 such as those concern-ing fl ight delay or cancellation, contain more clearly worded defi nitions

• That in cases where a con-sumer was not offered assist-ance within the “right to care” and is forced to seek reim-bursement of expenses after-wards, they can claim addition-al compensation

• That delay is clearly defi ned in legislation, in the context of both its maximum length and overnight stay

• That a uniform, comprehensive and detailed system of assess-ing the value of evidence sup-plied by airlines is created

• That when a passenger who was denied boarding produces confi rmation from the relevant authority in a country of transit or the fi nal destination that the documentation was suffi cient to enter that country’s territory, compensation should be paid by the airline

8. Conclusions and fi nal recommendations

31

• That passengers who cancel their booking are refunded all “third party fees” subject to a reasonable administration fee

• That legislation regulating “third party fees” is created

Legal action/ADR/NEB related recommendations

• That an effective and developed system of ADRs is created

• That the ADR bodies cover the Regulation 261/2004 and other relevant legislation, like the Montreal Convention

• That penalty charges are im-posed on airlines for not pro-viding passengers with written information at the airport about their entitlements in the case of delay, cancellation or denied boarding

• That there is a good mutual co-operation between the NEBs

• That there is a good coopera-tion of the ECC with the NEB of its Member State

• That there is a good coopera-tion between the ECC-Net and NEBs

• That NEBs assist consumers with obtaining contra-evidence whenever “extraordinary cir-cumstances” are invoked

• That penalty charges are levied by NEBs on air carriers, whose general policy is to refund the expenses rather than offer assistance

• That the remit of NEBs is ex-tended and the power of in-vestigating claims under the Montreal Convention is given to them

• That the European small claims procedure, once introduced, is available for consumers in cases where consequential damages are claimed

Airline customer service related recommendations

• That all airlines make available their contact details to com-plain, via telephone, email and post

• That a reasonable time limit for dealing with complaint is out-lined in the legislation

• That NEBs levy penalty fi nes on airlines which blatantly fail to respond to consumers’ complaints

• That it is possible to complain in the same language in which the passenger booked the ticket

• That one universal register of required travel documentation is created and used by all air carriers

• That the booking confi rmation includes a clear and compre-hensive breakdown of all the supplementary charges, indi-cating what they are for and who they are payable to

• That airlines respect the con-sumers right to compensation for costs due to delay of lug-gage, which is not conditional on whether it was an inbound or outbound fl ight

• That all airlines have reason-able and comprehensive lists of checked-in items for which liability is excluded

• That, in order to comply with al-ready existing legislation which levies the burden of proof on the air carrier, whenever “ex-traordinary circumstances” are invoked, the air carrier has to provide evidence of it

32

1 Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of fl ights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ L46, 17.2.2004, p. 1)

2 Convention for the Unifi cation of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, Montreal, 28 May 1999 (OJ L194, 18.7.2001, p.39)

3 The convention does not explicitly mention cancellation, but this would also cover damages due to cancellation

4 As of 16/10/2007 1SDR equals €1.04. www.imf.org.

5 Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 of 4 February 1991 establishing common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport. OJ L 36, 8.2.1991, p. 5–7.

6 Convention for the Unifi cation of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air Montreal, 28 May 1999

7 The NEBs are nationally designated bodies who enforce the EC Reg 261/04 and also handle consumer complaints related to issues that fall under that legislation only.

8 Panorama of Transport, Edition 2007, Eurostat, table 5.38 p. 120

9 The list of National Enforcement Bodies under Regulation 261/2004 can be found on the website of the European Commis-sion : http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/passenger_rights/doc/2005_01_31_national_enforcement_bodies_en.pdf

10 Commission staff working document accompanying the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation EC 261/2004

11 Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and UK

12 Finland, Portugal, Sweden and UK

13 Regulation (EC) No. 861/2007 published in the Offi cial Journal on 31.07.07

14 Most ECC offi ces have general information on air passengers rights on their website, but might not report this as an activity.

15 As of 16 October 2007 (www.imf.org)

16 See reference 1

17 Opinion of Advocate General, Sharpston, delivered on 27 September 2007 (1), Case C-396/06 Eivind F. Kramme v SAS Scandi-navian Airlines Danmark A/S

18 As of 16 October 2007 (www.imf.org)

19 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air transport services in the Community, Brussels, 18.7.2006, com(2006) 396 fi nal, 2006/0130 (cod)

20 Refund fees applied by the airline are in violation of the Norwegian Market Council’s ruling from 02/2006, stating that the company cannot charge passengers for refunding taxes and fees. The Market Council also stated that the airline must im-prove passenger information regarding rights and responsibilities in the case of delays or cancellations and also assume more responsibility for lost or damaged luggage.

Footnotes

32

Appendices

APPENDIX A

ECC Net questionnaire

AIR PASSENGERS REPORT 2007

answers from ecc

1. How many information requests did your ECC receive in relation to the following categories in 2006

Delay

Cancellation

Denied boarding

Luggage related e.g. lost, delayed, excess baggage etc.,

Other air passenger related

TOTAL :

2. How many complaints / disputes did your ECC receive in relation to the following categories in 2006

Delay

Cancellation

Denied boarding

Luggage related e.g. lost, delayed, excess baggage etc.,

Other air passenger related

TOTAL :

3. What proportion of your total contacts in 2006 related to air travel (information requests and complaints / disputes)?

33

34

4. Country of the air carrier (Please add to the list of countries where required) Please note the country of the air carrier involved in each air travel related complaint / dispute handled by your ECC during 2006. Please do not include information relating to simple complaints.

UK

France

Germany

Denmark

Spain

Netherlands

Belgium

Norway

Ireland

Portugal

Canada

Malta

Italy

Switzerland

Poland

Austria

Greece

USA

Sweden

Other :

Other :

Other :

35

5. Country of consumer (Please add to the list of countries where required) Please note the country of the consumer involved in each air travel related complaint / dispute handled by your ECC during 2006. Please do not include information relating to simple complaints.

Sweden

Portugal

Germany

France

UK

Austria

Norway

Finland

Belgium

Greece

Spain

Italy

Czech Rep

Denmark

Netherlands

Ireland

Lithuania

Malta

Other :

Other :

Other :

36

6. How many complaints / disputes were by the end of 2006

Resolved

Partially resolved

Unresolved

Still open

Invalid claim

TOTAL :

7. For those complaints / disputes that were partially resolved or unresolved what were the reasons ?

Partially resolved :

Airline claimed “exceptional circumstances”

Airline did not respond

Air line met responsibilities under 261/2004 but not a claim for damages/expenses under the Montreal Convention

Air line agreed to make payment in relation to expenses but not responsibilities under 261/2004

Other :

TOTAL : Unresolved :

Airline claimed “exceptional circumstances”

Airline did not respond

Air line met responsibilities under 261/2004 but not a claim for damages/expenses under the Montreal Convention

Air line agreed to make payment in relation to expenses but not responsibilities under 261/2004

Other :

TOTAL :

37

8. Do you have an ADR in your country that can deal with air passenger complaints ? If so, please name the ADR body :

9. a) If an ADR body was used in resolving the complaint / dispute (NOT the NEB), please name the ADR body :

b) How many complaints / disputes have you referred to that body ?

10. What in your opinion when trying to resolve consumer complaints / disputes, are the main areas that prevent them being resolved ? (give a number from 1 to 5 depending on its importance (5 : very important - 1 not important)

Enforcement body coverage

Non-response from airlines

Proving the value of luggage

Airline claims “force majeur”

Proving the damage when delay (in Montreal Convention)

No legal base to recover from damage after annulation in case of force majeur

Other :

Other :

Other :

11. Please list any initiatives/work/meetings that your ECC has been involved with in relation to air passenger rights in 2006 :

12. Do you have any case studies that highlight particular problems consumers in your country have en countered in relation to air travel ? If so please note them here :

38

AUSTRIA

EUROPEAN CONSUMER

CENTRE AUSTRIA

EUROPÄISCHES

VERBRAUCHERZENTRUM

Director : Georg Mentschl

Mariahilfer Straße 81

1060 Wien

◗ + 43/1 588 77 0 (general line)

Europa-Hotline 0810 - 810 225

(only available in Austria)

◗ + 43/1 588 77 99 342

◗ info@europakonsument.at

◗ www.europakonsument.at

BELGIUM

EUROPEAN CONSUMER

CENTRE BELGIUM

EUROPEES CENTRUM

VOOR DE CONSUMENT

CENTRE EUROPÉEN

DES CONSOMMATEURS

Director : Edith Appelmans

Hollandstraat 13 / rue de Hollande 13

1060 Brussel/Bruxelles

◗ +32/2 542 33 46 / +32/2 542 33 89

◗ +32/2 542 32 43

◗ info@eccbelgium.be

◗ www.eccbelgium.be

CYPRUS

EUROPEAN CONSUMER

CENTRE CYPRUS

ευρωπαϊκό κέντρο καταναλωτή

κύπρου

Director : Phrosso Hadjiluca

c/o Competition and Consumers

Protection Service (CCPS),

Ministry of Commerce,

Industry and Tourism

6, Andreas Araouzos

1421 Nicosia

◗ +357/2286 7100

◗ +357/22 375120

◗ ecccyprus@mcit.gov.cy

◗ www.ecccyprus.org

CZECH REPUBLIC

EUROPEAN CONSUMER

CENTRE THE CZECH REPUBLIC

EVROPSKÉ SPOTŘEBITELSKÉ

CENTRUM

Director : Karel Kronovetr

Na Františku 32

110 15 Prague 1

◗ +420/22406 2672

◗ +420/22406 2314

◗ esc@mpo.cz

◗ www.mpo.cz ; www.mpo.cz/esc

DENMARK

EUROPEAN CONSUMER

CENTRE DENMARK

FORBRUGER EUROPA

Director : Peter Fogh Knudsen

Amagerfaelledvej 56

DK-2300 Copenhagen S

◗ +45/32 66 90 00

◗ +45/32 66 91 00

◗ info@forbrugereuropa.dk

◗ www.forbrugereuropa.dk

ESTONIA

EUROPEAN CONSUMER

CENTRE ESTONIA

EUROOPA LIIDU TARBIJA

NÕUSTAMISKESKUS

Director :

Kristina Vaksmaa-Tammaru

Kiriku 4

15071 Tallinn

◗ +372/6201 708

◗ +372/6201 701

◗ consumer@consumer.ee

◗ www.consumer.ee

FINLAND

EUROPEAN CONSUMER

CENTRE FINLAND

EUROOPAN

KULUTTAJAKESKUS

Director : Leena Lindström

Haapaniemenkatu 4 A/P.O. BOX 5

Box 5

00531 Helsinki

◗ +358/9 7726 7816

(between 9-12)

◗ +358/9 7726 7557

◗ ekk@kuluttajavirasto.fi

◗ www.ecc.fi

FRANCE

EUROPEAN CONSUMER

CENTRE FRANCE

CENTRE EUROPEEN

DES CONSOMMATEURS

Director : Bianca Schulz

c/o Euro-Info-Verbraucher e.V.

Rehfusplatz 11

D-77694 Kehl

◗ +49/78 51 991 48 0

0820/200 999

(only accessible from France)

◗ +49/78 51 991 48 11

◗ info@euroinfo-kehl.com

◗ www.euroinfo-kehl.com

APPENDIX B

EUROPEAN CONSUMER CENTRES NETWORK (ECC-NET)

39

GERMANY

EUROPEAN CONSUMER

CENTRE GERMANY

EUROPÄISCHES

VERBRAUCHERZENTRUM

DEUTSCHLAND

Director : Jutta Gurkmann

c/o Euro-Info-Verbraucher e.V.

Rehfusplatz 11

D-77694 Kehl

◗ +49/7851 991 48 0

◗ +49/7851 991 48 11

◗ info@euroinfo-kehl.com

◗ www.euroinfo-kehl.com

Address 2 : Kiel offi ce

Willestraße 4-6

D-24103 Kiel

◗ +49/431 971 93 50

◗ +49/431 971 93 60

◗ info.kiel@evz.de

◗ www.evz.de

GREECE

EUROPEAN CONSUMER

CENTRE GREECE

Ευρωπαϊκό κέντρο καταναλωτή

c/o Hellenic Ministry of Development

Director : Ioanna Haralabopoúou

Kanigos Square

GR - 10 181 Athens

◗ +30/210 3847253

◗ +30/210 3847106

◗ infoeccgr@efpolis.gr

◗ www.eccefpolis.gr

HUNGARY

EUROPEAN CONSUMER

CENTRE HUNGARY

EURÓPAI FOGYASZTÓI KÖZPONT

Director : György Morvay

Logodi u. 22-24

1012 Budapest

◗ +36/1 473 0338

◗ +36/1 331 7386

◗ info@efk.hu

◗ www.efk.hu

ICELAND

EUROPEAN CONSUMER

CENTRE ICELAND

EVRÓPSKA

NEYTENDAAÐSTOÐIN

ENA – ECC ICELAND

Director : Iris Osp Ingjaldsdottir

Siðumúli 13, postbox 8160

128 Reykjavik

◗ +354/ 545 1200

◗ +354/ 545 1212

◗ ena@ena.is

◗ www.ena.is

IRELAND

EUROPEAN CONSUMER

CENTRE DUBLIN

Director : Tina Leonard

13a Upper O’Connell Street

Dublin 1

◗ +353/1 809 06 00

◗ +353/1 809 06 01

◗ info@eccdublin.ie

◗ www.eccdublin.ie

ITALY

EUROPEAN CONSUMER

CENTRE ITALY

CENTRO EUROPEO

CONSUMATORI

Director : Laura Galli

Via G.M. Lancisi 31

00161 Roma

◗ +39/06 442 38 090

◗ +39/06 442 90 734

◗ info@ecc-net.it

◗ www.ecc-net.it

LATVIA

EUROPEAN CONSUMER

CENTRE LATVIA

EIROPAS PATĒRĒTĀJU

INFORMĒŠANAS CENTRS

c/o Patērētāju Tiesību Aizsardzības

Centrs-Consumer Rights

Protection Centre

Director : Aija Gulbe

Kr. Valdemara Street 157-228

1013 Riga

◗ +371/738 8625

◗ +371/738 8625

◗ info@ecclatvia.lv

◗ www.ecclatvia.lv

LITHUANIA

EUROPEAN CONSUMER

CENTRE LITHUANIA

EUROPOS VARTOTOJŲ

CENTRAS

Director : Nijolė Steponkutė

J. Basanavičiaus 20-11

03224 Vilnius

◗ +370/5/2650368

◗ +370/5/2623123

◗ info@ecc.lt

◗ www.ecc.lt

LUXEMBOURG

EUROPEAN CONSUMER

CENTRE LUXEMBOURG

CENTRE EUROPEEN

DES CONSOMMATEURS-GIE

LUXEMBOURG

Director : Karin Basenach

55 rue des Bruyères

L-1274 Howald

◗ +352 26 84 641

◗ +352 26 84 57 61

◗ info@cecluxembourg.lu

◗ www.cecluxembourg.lu

40

MALTA

EUROPEAN CONSUMER

CENTRE MALTA

Director : Claude Sammut

Annex to Consumer & Competition

Division

47A, South Street,

Valletta, Malta

◗ +356 21 22 19 01

◗ ecc.malta@gov.mt

◗ www.eccnetmalta.gov.mt

THE NETHERLANDS

EUROPEAN CONSUMER

CENTRE THE NETHERLANDS

STICHTING CONSUMENTEN

INFORMATIE PUNT

Director : Patricia de Bont

Catharijnesingel 55, 5th fl oor

3511 GD Utrecht

P.O. Box 487

3500 AL Utrecht, the Netherlands

◗ +31/(0)33 469 9021

◗ +31/(0)30 234 2727

◗ info@eccnl.eu

◗ www.eccnl.eu

NORWAY

EUROPEAN CONSUMER

CENTRE NORWAY

FORBRUKER EUROPA

Director : Elisabeth van Riessen

P.O.Box 4594 Nydalen

0404 Oslo

◗ +47 23 400 500

◗ +47 23 400 501

◗ post@forbrukereuropa.no

◗ www.forbrukereuropa.no

POLAND

EUROPEAN CONSUMER

CENTRE POLAND

EUROPEJSKIE CENTRUM

KONSUMENCKIE

Director : Aleksandra Olczak

Plac Powstańców Warszawy 1

00 950 Warsaw

◗ +48/022 55 60 118

PORTUGAL

EUROPEAN CONSUMER

CENTRE PORTUGAL

CENTRO EUROPEU DO

CONSUMIDOR

Director : Cecilie Cardona

Praça Duque de Saldanha, 31-1°

1069-013 Lisboa

◗ +351/21 356 47 50 or 52

◗ +351/21 356 47 12

◗ euroconsumo@ic.pt

◗ www.consumidor.pt/cec

SLOVAKIA

EUROPEAN CONSUMER

CENTRE SLOVAKIA

EURÓPSKE SPOTREBITEL’SKÉ

CENTRUM

Director : Dženšίda Veliová

Mierová 19

827 15 Bratislava

◗ 00421/2 4854 1605

◗ 00421/2 4854 1627

◗ ecc@economy.gov.sk

◗ www.economy.gov.sk/ecc

SLOVENIA

EUROPEAN CONSUMER

CENTRE SLOVENIA

EVROPSKI POTROŠNIŠKI CENTER

Evropski potrošniški center

Director : Mrs. Jana Huč Uršič

1000 Ljubljana

Frankopanska 5

◗ +386 1 432 30 35

◗ +386 1 433 33 71

◗ epc@epc.si

◗ www.epc.si

SPAIN

EUROPEAN CONSUMER

CENTRE SPAIN

CENTRO EUROPEO

DEL CONSUMIDOR

Director : José Maria Tamames Rivera

Principe de Vergara 54

28006 Madrid

◗ +34/ 91 822 45 55

◗ +34/ 91 822 45 62

◗ cec@consumo-inc.es

◗ http://cec.consumo-inc.es

SWEDEN

EUROPEAN CONSUMER

CENTRE SWEDEN

KONSUMENT EUROPA

Director : Agneta Gillback

Box 48

65102 Karlstad

◗ +46/54 - 19 41 50

◗ +46/54 - 19 41 95

◗ info@konsumenteuropa.se

◗ www.konsumenteuropa.se

UNITED KINGDOM

EUROPEAN CONSUMER

CENTRE UK

Director : Jediah Mayatt

1 Sylvan Court, Sylvan Way,

Southfi elds Business Park

BASILDON Essex UK SS15 6TH

◗ +44 (0)8456 04 05 03 (Monday to

Thursday: 10:00am to 4:00pm,

Friday: 10:00am to 3:30pm)

◗ +44 (0)8456 08 96 00

◗ ecc@tsi.org.uk

◗ www.ukecc.net

ECC BelgiumRue de Hollande 131060 Brusselsinfo@eccbelgium.bewww.eccbelgium.be

ECC Ireland13a Upper O’Connell StreetDublin 1info@eccdublin.iewww.eccdublin.ie

Konsument EuropaLagergrens Gata 8Box 48651 02 Karlstadinfo@konsumenteuropa.sewww.konsumenteuropa.se

The ECC Network is funded by the European Commission DG Health & Consumer Protection and the Member States